1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with a new card company and a security deposit of 27,840,000 won, rent of 2,385,910 won per month, and the maturity date of the instant vehicle on March 25, 2016, and completed the transfer of ownership on March 10, 2016.

B. On June 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) forged the Plaintiff’s certificate of automobile transfer under the Plaintiff’s name using the Plaintiff’s seal; (b) forged the Plaintiff’s certificate of automobile transfer on June 16, 2016; and (c) completed the Plaintiff’s registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant as to the portion of 1/100 of the instant automobiles, as to the portion of 1/100 of the instant automobiles, using the forged

From that time, the Defendant occupied the instant motor vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the criminal facts that the Defendant forged and exercised the instant automobile transfer certificate.

Accordingly, on June 1, 2017, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year from the Suwon District Court (2016Da3574, 2016Kadan5748 (merged)) and the prosecutor appealed, but the above judgment became final and conclusive as dismissed around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4 (Evidence Nos. 8)

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to 1/100 shares among the instant automobiles (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”) is made based on the motor vehicle transfer certificate in the name of the plaintiff forged, and thus, the registration of the invalidity of the cause is made. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of transfer of ownership and deliver the instant motor vehicle to the plaintiff,

B. (1) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant motor vehicle was in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff is the same.